KARNATAKA SANGHA, MUMBAI V. ITO (EXEMPTION)-1(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 519/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Karnataka Sangha, Dr. Vishveshwarya Smarak Mandir, the appellant, contesting an ex-parte order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was issued despite a prior decision on the same matter. The original appeal for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was decided in favor of the assessee by CIT(A)-7 on 22/01/2018. However, due to an administrative error, the appeal was reopened and decided again in a faceless manner, leading to the current litigation. The Tribunal found the Department's actions to be negligent and imposed costs on the Department while allowing the assessee's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126954 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 26-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर य कर म ु ंबई ठ “एच ”, म ु ंबई ठ क , य यक य ए ं गगन गोय , ेख क र य के म% IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ ं.519/म ु ं/ 2023 ( न. .2013-14) ITA NO. 519/MUM/2023(A.Y. 2013-14) Karnataka Sangha, Dr. Vishveshwarya Smarak Mandir, CSM Marg, Off. T.H.Kataria Marg, Matunga Road (West), Mumbai – 400 016. PAN: AAATK-3204-A ...... + /Appellant बन म Vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-1(4), Prathistha Bhavan, MK Road, Mumbai- 400 020. ..... , - /Respondent + . र / Appellant by : Shri Bhupendra Shah , - . र /Respondent by : Shri Shambhu Yadav ु न ई क/ - / Date of hearing : 27/04/2023 0ो1 क/ - / Date of pronouncement : 31/05/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 08/02/2023, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 ITA NO. 519/MUM/2023(A.Y. 2013-14) 2. Shri Bhupendra Shah appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that this appeal by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A) dismissing appeal of the assessee in an ex-parte proceedings. Narrating sequence of events the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that against the addition made in assessment order dated 09/02/2016 passed u/s. 143(3) Income Tax Act,1961 [in short ‘the Act’] for assessment year 2013-14, the assessee had filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-7. The said appeal was decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7 [in short CIT(A) -7] vide composite order dated 22/01/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The said appeal of assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 was allowed by the CIT(A). The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee furnished copy of the order by CIT(A)-7. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that CIT(A) has erred in again taking up the appeal that was already decided and pass second order in an ex-parte proceedings. Once the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 has been decided by the CIT(A) -7, there was no occasion for the CIT(A) to pass the second order in the same appeal. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that because of negligence of the Department the assessee is forced into litigation and pay Rs.10,000/- towards filing fee of an appeal before the Tribunal, apart from engaging a Counsel. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee prayed for imposing cost on the Department. 3. Shri Shambhu Yadav representing the Department fairly admitted that the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 was earlier decided by the CIT(A) -7 vide order dated 23/01/2018. The second order in same appeal 3 ITA NO. 519/MUM/2023(A.Y. 2013-14) has been passed inadvertently. The confusion occurred for the reason that the first appeal was decided in physical mode, subsequently, Faceless System was introduced for deciding the appeals and the second order in the case of assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 was passed in faceless regime. 4. Both sides heard. The short contention of the assessee is that appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 was adjudicated by the CIT(A) -7 vide order dated 22/01/2018 the same appeal of the assessee was again taken up for adjudication in faceless mode by National Faceless Appeal Centre and was decided in an ex-parte proceedings against the assessee. It is absolute slackness on the part of Department to fix an appeal for hearing that has already been disposed of. The assessee has been forced into litigation causing inconvenience and financial burden. It is a fit case for levy of cost on the Department. We direct the Department to pay cost Rs.10,000/- i.e. equivalent to the fee paid by the assessee for filing appeal before the Tribunal. The cost be paid in accordance with Rule 32A(2) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, within three months from the date of receipt of order. 5. In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 31st day of May, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (GAGAN GOYAL) (VIKAS AWASTHY) ेख क र य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER य यक य/JUDICIAL MEMBER म ु ंबई/ Mumbai, 2 न ंक/Dated 31/05/2023 Vm, Sr. PS(O/S) 4 ITA NO. 519/MUM/2023(A.Y. 2013-14) े Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. +/The Appellant , 2. , - / The Respondent. 3. The PCIT 4.. 3 ग य , - न , आय. . ., म ु बंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. ग 56 7 8 /Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai